NATO: From Washington (1949) to Strasbourg/Kehl (2009)
The Alliance cannot avoid a strategic debate about its role, missions and resources. This may be painful, but it will ensure clarity and prepare the Alliance for future challenges.
When the 12 founding members signed the North Atlantic Treaty in Washington DC on 4th April 1949, no-one could imagine that they were present at the creation of the most successful politico-military alliance in modern history. What they initially agreed upon was an institutionalized conference of member states, which was developed only step by step into an international organization with powerful military capability. Today, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) consists of 28 member states, and more are awaiting admission. It conducts military operations on three continents and has institutionalized partnerships with some 20 countries and very close relations with key democracies outside Europe, such as Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea.
Given this amazing evolution, the challenge lies in the question of how to structure NATO’s history over the last 60 years. One possibility is to take NATO’s disputes and crises throughout the decades as a guiding principle. In 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty – also called the Washington Treaty – was signed as the Soviet Union continued to impose the Berlin Blockade. At the same time, many Alliance partners had serious reservations about the newly emerging Federal Republic of Germany. The year 1959 was marked by continuing Soviet pressure concerning the status of Berlin. In 1969, international protests against the war in Vietnam dominated the scene. A year before, NATO had passively witnessed the crushing of democratic tendencies in Czechoslovakia by Warsaw Pact forces. Some Europeans considered as weakness NATO’s lack of action. In 1979, Alliance members took the ‘Dual-Track Decision’ (also known as the Double-Track Decision) to cope with the emerging threat posed by Soviet SS-20 nuclear missiles in Europe. This was the prelude to one of NATO’s most severe crises, which took the Alliance close to breaking up in the early 1980s.
Even after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the ‘victory’ of NATO in the Cold War, disputes seemed to be the guiding element in the Alliance’s history. NATO enlargement, the crisis in the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Iraq are catchwords that all stand for heavy transatlantic or intra-European clashes repeatedly putting a strain on NATO’s cohesion. […]
OUTLINE
- NATO’s phases
- Phase 1: Four decades of self-assertion and self-defense
- Phase 2: NATO as the “Midwife of Change”
- Phase 3: NATO after 9/11
- Problems at the Age of 60
Karl-Heinz Kamp is Research Division Director at the NATO Defense College, Rome. Previously he worked for a long time as security policy coordinator at the Konrad Adenauer Foundation in Berlin. He has also been seconded to the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and has taught political science at the University of Cologne.
Available in:
Share
This page contains only a summary of our work. If you would like to have access to all the information from our research on the subject, you can download the full version in PDF format.
NATO: From Washington (1949) to Strasbourg/Kehl (2009)
Iran: Anatomy of a Power at War
The elimination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and several high-ranking officials at the outset of the 2026 American-Israeli operation did not succeed in bringing down the Iranian regime. The regime had prepared for such a scenario, notably by decentralizing its structures. Moreover, it continues to adapt to war. The power of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is growing at the expense of the Shiite clergy. The security apparatus defends the country’s sovereignty and justifies its actions in the name of raison d’état.
“Remodeling” the Middle East?
Chaos continues to spread, seemingly without end, across the Middle East. The Israeli-American attack on Iran has resulted in a clear military and diplomatic failure, but it is paving the way for a regional realignment, the consequences of which remain uncertain. New regional groupings are taking shape, either centered around Israel or built on the prospect of coexistence with Tehran, alongside a decline in American influence and the marginalization of Europe, while China maintains a low-key presence.
Silicon Valley and War: Lessons from Ukraine
Over the course of international conflicts, and particularly in Ukraine, major tech companies have emerged as central actors. Initially subject to wartime maneuvering, they have since become decisive actors in their own right, privatizing a significant share of wartime exchanges, shaping the information flows of societies, and presenting themselves as providers of security. This situation raises important questions about states’ autonomy in making decisions and taking action.
Does Artificial Intelligence Change the Nature of War?
From Gaza to Ukraine and Iran, current conflicts are being shaped by the arrival of artificial intelligence and robots on the battlefield. The changes under way are so profound that humans risk rapidly losing control over entire aspects of the conduct of military operations. While these technological developments are altering the character of war, their impact on the very nature of war itself remains a matter of debate.